Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It has been contended on behalf of the defendants that the meaning of the word 'debt' in S. 7(1) of this Act should be confined only to a 'debtor' as defined in sub-s. (2) of that section, but for that there is no justification as the word 'debtor; is specially defined in sub-s. (2) with limited meaning for the purposes of Part IV of this Act, while the meaning of the word 'debt; in sub-s. (1) being inclusive is not narrowed by the definition. It is true that some defined liabilities are excluded from that definition but that does not make the meaning of the word 'debt; is sub-s. (1) as merely confined to a debt owed by a 'debtor' as defined in sub-s (2).A 'debtor' as defined in that sub-section of course is a person who owes a debt, but a 'debt' as defined in sub-section (1) may be owned by a 'debtor' as defined in sub-s. (2) and may also be owed by a debtor falling outside the narrower definition of the word 'debtor' as given in sub-s. (2).

The learned counsel for the defendants then refers to Balkishan v. Baldeo Kumar, AIR 1953 Punj 297, and contends that in that case, in regard to a mortgage debt, the learned Judge held that that was not a case of 'debt' as the word is used in S. 7, but that was a case of usufructuary mortgage, and as has already been shown a usufructuary mortgage is not a 'debt' within the meaning of that section. This case is not helpful to the defendants either.

(10) In sub-section (1) of S. 30 of Punjab Act No. 7 of 1934 prohibition is against passing or executing the decree in a suit in respect of a debt as defined in S. 7 of this Act. Section 30 makes no reference to a 'debtor' as defined in S. 7(2), it only refers to a 'debt' as defined in S. 7(1). It the suit relates to a 'debt' as defined therein, the rule of damdupat, as enacted in Section 30, is immediately attracted, whether or not the party seeking its benefit is within or outside the scope of the word 'debtor' as defined in S. 7(2). So reference to the definition of the word 'debtor' in S. 7(2) of this Act is besides the point. When the suit is in respect of a 'debt' as defined in S. 7(1), irrespective of who the debtor is and in what capacity he is being sued, the rule of damdupat applies under S. 30 of this Act.

A Division Bench of this Court in Hukam Singh v. Duli Lal Singh, AIR 1959 Punj 566, has taken the same view. In reference to a similar argument in that case, as in the present case, the learned Judges observed that "it may be that the plaintiff in this case who is a legal representative of the original debtor, is not a debtor as defined in sub-s. (2) of S. 7, but that fact cannot alter the fact that the suit has been brought in respect of a debt as defined in S. 7(1). In these circumstances it was in my opinion the duty of the Court to do what it has actually done, namely to give effect to the rule of damdupat and to refrain from passing a decree in contravention if the provisions of S. 30 of the statute."

(16) The Full Bench having held that it is open to the legal representatives of a debtor to invoke the help of section 30 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934, in a suit for possession by redemption, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants has submitted that the rule embodied in that section should be applied. The learned counsel for the defendant-respondents, however, contends that on the facts obtaining in the present case the suit cannot be regarded to be in respect of a debt as defined in section 7 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act. It is pointed out that in the definition of the word "debt" as given therein any debt which is barred by the Law of Limitation is expressly excluded and is not covered by that definition. The submission is that the debt due from the mortgagors to the mortgagees became barred by the Law of Limitation long ago after the lapse of a period of 12 years from the date when the mortgages were created. Thus the suit being in respect of the aforesaid debt section 30 read with section 7 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act would no application.